Judicial Negligence and Legal Malpractice spawn suit
Central Kentucky Judge, Attorney, others Sued for Misconduct and Fraud.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 28, 2007
Central Ky - A Fayette County Civil Family Court Judge has been sued, along with a local attorney. In addition, 2 assistant Fayette county attorney's, The Judicial Conduct Commission, and the Ky Bar Association have been named also. All were named as individual defendants and the multi count complaint begins with malpractice and adds Negligent Performance of Duties, and Negligent Supervisory Duties on the part of the oversight Commissions.
The Plaintiffs in the suit are a Father and Son, of Madison Co., who were injured by the malpractice and misconduct of a judge and attorney in a dissolution proceeding. Property fraud occurred, and the conduct of the professionals could even constitute a violation of KRS 506.040 criminal conspiracy. An unlawful taking of the child by judicial fiat order, as cover to the underlying property fraud occurring. Others gained in monetary benefit as a result of the fraud.
The Suit is lawful as an action upon the official bonds filed upon the oath of office to faithfully execute the office and duties. It is also an action in tort for Negligent performance of duties, failure to follow the duties prescribed by statute, and violation of law. The criminal statute violations are being sued out under civil suit, since no commonwealths attorney, nor the attorney generals office would take up the action.
Some case law that applies, such as, Marcum It is well settled law that, like other species of fraud, [undue]influence that results in the execution of a will which is not in truth the free expression and desire of the maker may be proved by a chain of circumstances. Ordinarily that is the case; often of necessity. Walls v. Walls, 99 S.W. 969, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 948; Barber’s Executors v. Baldwin’s Executor, 138 Ky. 710, 128 S.W. 1092. As stated in Livering’s Executor v. Russell, 100 S.W. 840, 844, 30 Ky.Law Rep. 1185, “All that can be done is to prove certain acts and facts, and it is from these, when connected into a composite whole, that the evidence of undue influence is made to appear . . . [and the jury] had a right to weigh these facts for what they were worth.” Marcum Id. at 865.
Additional case law to apply will be, Ludwig In 1932, Kentucky's highest court expressly recognized:
It was the manifest purpose of the framers of . . . [our Constitution] to preserve and perpetuate the common-law right of a citizen injured by the negligent act of another to sue and recover damages for his injury. The imperative mandate of section 14 is that every person, for an injury done him in his person, shall have remedy by due course of law. . . . The Constitution guarantees to him his right to a day in court for the purpose of establishing the alleged wrong perpetrated on him and recovery of his resultant damages. Ludwig v. Johnson, 243 Ky. 534, 49 S.W.2d 347, 351 (1932)
The Suit is seeking actual and punitive damages of 5 million dollars and will deal with such issues as judicial immunity, and when and if it would apply. The US Supreme Court has said that it does not extend for every act perceived judicial in nature, nor criminal acts.
http://162.114.92.78/dockets/CaseDetailFormat.asp?CaseNumber=2007-SC-000327
-33-
for additional information contact Wes Collins, at 859 527 0332 or cwcpsc@bellsouth.net
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 28, 2007
Central Ky - A Fayette County Civil Family Court Judge has been sued, along with a local attorney. In addition, 2 assistant Fayette county attorney's, The Judicial Conduct Commission, and the Ky Bar Association have been named also. All were named as individual defendants and the multi count complaint begins with malpractice and adds Negligent Performance of Duties, and Negligent Supervisory Duties on the part of the oversight Commissions.
The Plaintiffs in the suit are a Father and Son, of Madison Co., who were injured by the malpractice and misconduct of a judge and attorney in a dissolution proceeding. Property fraud occurred, and the conduct of the professionals could even constitute a violation of KRS 506.040 criminal conspiracy. An unlawful taking of the child by judicial fiat order, as cover to the underlying property fraud occurring. Others gained in monetary benefit as a result of the fraud.
The Suit is lawful as an action upon the official bonds filed upon the oath of office to faithfully execute the office and duties. It is also an action in tort for Negligent performance of duties, failure to follow the duties prescribed by statute, and violation of law. The criminal statute violations are being sued out under civil suit, since no commonwealths attorney, nor the attorney generals office would take up the action.
Some case law that applies, such as, Marcum It is well settled law that, like other species of fraud, [undue]influence that results in the execution of a will which is not in truth the free expression and desire of the maker may be proved by a chain of circumstances. Ordinarily that is the case; often of necessity. Walls v. Walls, 99 S.W. 969, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 948; Barber’s Executors v. Baldwin’s Executor, 138 Ky. 710, 128 S.W. 1092. As stated in Livering’s Executor v. Russell, 100 S.W. 840, 844, 30 Ky.Law Rep. 1185, “All that can be done is to prove certain acts and facts, and it is from these, when connected into a composite whole, that the evidence of undue influence is made to appear . . . [and the jury] had a right to weigh these facts for what they were worth.” Marcum Id. at 865.
Additional case law to apply will be, Ludwig In 1932, Kentucky's highest court expressly recognized:
It was the manifest purpose of the framers of . . . [our Constitution] to preserve and perpetuate the common-law right of a citizen injured by the negligent act of another to sue and recover damages for his injury. The imperative mandate of section 14 is that every person, for an injury done him in his person, shall have remedy by due course of law. . . . The Constitution guarantees to him his right to a day in court for the purpose of establishing the alleged wrong perpetrated on him and recovery of his resultant damages. Ludwig v. Johnson, 243 Ky. 534, 49 S.W.2d 347, 351 (1932)
The Suit is seeking actual and punitive damages of 5 million dollars and will deal with such issues as judicial immunity, and when and if it would apply. The US Supreme Court has said that it does not extend for every act perceived judicial in nature, nor criminal acts.
http://162.114.92.78/dockets/CaseDetailFormat.asp?CaseNumber=2007-SC-000327
-33-
for additional information contact Wes Collins, at 859 527 0332 or cwcpsc@bellsouth.net
posted by WhistleBlower at 9:26 PM
1 Comments:
Great thoughts you got there, believe I may possibly try just some of it throughout my daily life.
Negligence Claims - Easy Claim
Post a Comment
<< Home